Checkatrade Trophy - Format Survey

[Lundan Cabbie]

I do understand the mistrust here. One thing though, this competition set up was not a Premier League initiative. The academies involved are there by invitation from the FL and not once has the idea been a subject of discussion officially at any PL members meetings.

No but it is a treatment for a side-effect caused by previous Premier League backed initiatives.

PPPP player hoarding, reductions of the loan system, lack of trickle down money to grass roots and FL academies mean the Premier League clubs have a monopoly on young footballers with even the slightest hint of PL potential. They've gathered them all up but what on earth do they do with them? Release the "lessers" to FL clubs because they haven't got the room themselves to allow others to develop these youngsters competitively? No way, where's the money in that?!? Keep them under contract at the PL club just in case they do make it, all the while getting them competitive football in FL competitions? Now you're talking!

Pure greed!

I'm not sure I understood all that but I think I got some of it.

1. EPPP may not be good for smaller academies in respect of them losing their better prospects but it IS good for the kids. If they show any potential of being able to get to the very top then they can move to an academy with greater resources and increase their chances of realising that potential. A smaller club who loses a youngster at 15 under EPPP will still receive up to £1.5 million should he make the grade. How is that not a good deal?

2. This last 12 months alone the grassroots game has seen results from Premier League cash, having financed 300 facility projects, 69 artificial grass pitches, 112 grass pitches and 54 changing rooms. An investment in excess of £100 million. Of course they can afford to increase this but to say there is a lack of money going to grass roots football is not exactly fair comment.

3. The cancellation of the Football League's Emergency Loan Scheme was stopped by FIFA and had nothing to do with the PL.

4. Top level academies are not exclusive to the Premier League.

 

[Bermudian Green]

2. This last 12 months alone the grassroots game has seen results from Premier League cash, having financed 300 facility projects, 69 artificial grass pitches, 112 grass pitches and 54 changing rooms. An investment in excess of £100 million.

Great, so we're all more and more in debt to the mighty Premier League. Chelsea got £150m just for winning the title. Sunderland got your amount for getting relegated. Let's all crawl to their table and lick the crumbs off the floor and cheer to the rafters when our club and all it's history is consigned to a competitive game against Bournemouth reserves.

Mate - you might be playing in the land of milk and honey right now, but football is more than just money. Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Argy1e]

Most of these clubs don't have many more young players than we do. It's not exactly hoarding apart from a couple of clubs.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

2. This last 12 months alone the grassroots game has seen results from Premier League cash, having financed 300 facility projects, 69 artificial grass pitches, 112 grass pitches and 54 changing rooms. An investment in excess of £100 million.

Great, so we're all more and more in debt to the mighty Premier League. Chelsea got £150m just for winning the title. Sunderland got your amount for getting relegated. Let's all crawl to their table and lick the crumbs off the floor and cheer to the rafters when our club and all it's history is consigned to a competitive game against Bournemouth reserves.

Mate - you might be playing in the land of milk and honey right now, but football is more than just money. Why is that so hard to understand?

Who says it is a debt? I know of no requirement for that money to be repaid.

 

[Bermudian Green]

Who says it is a debt? I know of no requirement for that money to be repaid.

:roll:

Clubs are becoming dependent on the crumbs thrown to them via the checkatrade. That's all the leverage required to get B teams into the league. So yes, it is a debt. Clubs should be sustainable in their own right, this is what Harvey should be working towards, not picking the easy route and ignore the (not too distant) future.

 

[Lundan Cabbie]

The accusation was that the Premier League do not give money to grass roots football. The Football League isn't grass roots.

To be sustainable clubs have two options, curb their spending or increase their income. Harvey may well be doing it in a ham fisted manner but he is trying to find ways of improving his members' income. He would be stupid (I know most think he is anyway) to not try and encourage the Premier League to spend some of their vast fortunes the way of the EFL.

 

[Fat_green_belly]

Statto head on here.
When england won the world cup in 66, liverpool the domestic champions only used 14 players
all season out of a 29 man squad. Info from my 66-67 playfair football annual.
According to this link liverpool have retained a squad size of 62 for this coming PL season. Plus
i guess new signings on top to be added. Plus a team of scolars for youth games.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/408901
Chelsea i note have retained a ridiculous 92 man squad so they could field about 8 teams if they
wanted too. So we could be playing a chelsea Z team in the checkacrap never mind a B/u23 one.
So how does all of this herding and kettling benefit young talent. Seems obscene to me.
I take it that these players will be nearly all u21s because of these squad size rules for a PL season?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ad-3349993
It also says 8 of the 25 allowed in the 1st team squad have to be homegrown but it doesnt look
like future england players are prioritised much looking at those rules.
Interestingly chelsea used just 22 players out of 28 back in 65-66 back in the days when british
football reigned supreme at club and international level.
Unlike now.
Just go back the way it was ffs. Let the clubs develop kids locally and buy them when
they have established themselves in their or other first teams. The same with kids abroad as well.
The PL can still develop their own kids from their own footie mad communities just like they have
always done successfully before.
Aid the FA to fund coaching courses for smaller clubs to raise the standard nationally and not
so PL specific as it is now. Then the cream can rise to the top naturally again.

 

[Mark Colling]

He would be stupid (I know most think he is anyway) to not try and encourage the Premier League to spend some of their vast fortunes the way of the EFL.

... or he would be stupid to make the FL even more reliant on the PL.

The PL have put more into the Trophy but at a price.

The PL know that if they put enough money in front of the FL, some will agree to anything.

It is a very dangerous game to play.

 

[esmer]

Statto head on here.
When england won the world cup in 66, liverpool the domestic champions only used 14 players
all season out of a 29 man squad. Info from my 66-67 playfair football annual.
According to this link liverpool have retained a squad size of 62 for this coming PL season. Plus
i guess new signings on top to be added. Plus a team of scolars for youth games.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/408901
Chelsea i note have retained a ridiculous 92 man squad so they could field about 8 teams if they
wanted too. So we could be playing a chelsea Z team in the checkacrap never mind a B/u23 one.
So how does all of this herding and kettling benefit young talent. Seems obscene to me.
I take it that these players will be nearly all u21s because of these squad size rules for a PL season?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ad-3349993
It also says 8 of the 25 allowed in the 1st team squad have to be homegrown but it doesnt look
like future england players are prioritised much looking at those rules.
Interestingly chelsea used just 22 players out of 28 back in 65-66 back in the days when british
football reigned supreme at club and international level.
Unlike now.
Just go back the way it was ffs. Let the clubs develop kids locally and buy them when
they have established themselves in their or other first teams. The same with kids abroad as well.
The PL can still develop their own kids from their own footie mad communities just like they have
always done successfully before.
Aid the FA to fund coaching courses for smaller clubs to raise the standard nationally and not
so PL specific as it is now. Then the cream can rise to the top naturally again.

We failed to qualify for the world cup finals over a twenty year period from 1962 to 1982 (we were hosts in 1966 and champions in 1970), hardly reigning supreme.

 

[Mark Colling]

Chris Errington "scare mongering"

But clubs have already shown they are prepared to go against the wishes of their fans and allow Under 21s teams to play in the Checkatrade Trophy, most likely because of financial incentives.

So consider this scenario. The Premier League come forward in five years time and offer each EFL club £1 million to let category one academy teams enter the League.

That would be a total of £72m, a drop in the ocean for the mega-rich Premier League. They could probably offer £2m to each club and not notice the difference to their finances.

The question, therefore, is: Would EFL clubs take the £1m (or £2m) and allow category one academy teams to enter the League? I suspect they would.

 

[Keepitgreen]

To be fair to Chris he's only saying what others (including some on here) have been saying. Money talks, and that's what we're up against.

 

[Mark Colling]

To be fair to Chris he's only saying what others (including some on here) have been saying. Money talks, and that's what we're up against.

To be clear, I agree with Chris 100%; the inverted commas were for the benefit of the doubters. The slope is very slippery. from here.

 

[PL2 3DQ]

Last season the average age of the Chelsea team in the Every Fan Laughing trophy was 18 and a half, this was mainly due to the 38 players out on loan.

So if Chelsea send out another load of players on loan for this season Argyle will be playing against a team of teenagers, which in effect is Chelsea's D team.

 

[esmer]

Chris Errington "scare mongering"

But clubs have already shown they are prepared to go against the wishes of their fans and allow Under 21s teams to play in the Checkatrade Trophy, most likely because of financial incentives.

So consider this scenario. The Premier League come forward in five years time and offer each EFL club £1 million to let category one academy teams enter the League.

That would be a total of £72m, a drop in the ocean for the mega-rich Premier League. They could probably offer £2m to each club and not notice the difference to their finances.

The question, therefore, is: Would EFL clubs take the £1m (or £2m) and allow category one academy teams to enter the League? I suspect they would.

It is far from a drop in the ocean. Although the Premier League had a turnover of £3.6 billion last year the clubs made a combined loss of £117 million. So I doubt very much that they would double their losses for the sake of a fifth league for which they would have little enthusiasm given their track record thus far for developing young talent.
Having said that a fifth league would be an abomination and it is quite right for supporters to remain vigilant but it should be remembered that it was a proposal from the FA not the Premier League who I suspect would have little interest in it.

 

[Fat_green_belly]

Statto head on here.
When england won the world cup in 66, liverpool the domestic champions only used 14 players
all season out of a 29 man squad. Info from my 66-67 playfair football annual.
According to this link liverpool have retained a squad size of 62 for this coming PL season. Plus
i guess new signings on top to be added. Plus a team of scolars for youth games.
https://www.premierleague.com/news/408901
Chelsea i note have retained a ridiculous 92 man squad so they could field about 8 teams if they
wanted too. So we could be playing a chelsea Z team in the checkacrap never mind a B/u23 one.
So how does all of this herding and kettling benefit young talent. Seems obscene to me.
I take it that these players will be nearly all u21s because of these squad size rules for a PL season?
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/ ... ad-3349993
It also says 8 of the 25 allowed in the 1st team squad have to be homegrown but it doesnt look
like future england players are prioritised much looking at those rules.
Interestingly chelsea used just 22 players out of 28 back in 65-66 back in the days when british
football reigned supreme at club and international level.
Unlike now.
Just go back the way it was ffs. Let the clubs develop kids locally and buy them when
they have established themselves in their or other first teams. The same with kids abroad as well.
The PL can still develop their own kids from their own footie mad communities just like they have
always done successfully before.
Aid the FA to fund coaching courses for smaller clubs to raise the standard nationally and not
so PL specific as it is now. Then the cream can rise to the top naturally again.

We failed to qualify for the world cup finals over a twenty year period from 1962 to 1982 (we were hosts in 1966 and champions in 1970), hardly reigning supreme.

Or we failed to qualify for an 8 year period from 1970 to 1978. So 2 world cups.
Reigning supreme, well sorry to disappoint you but we did at that time as we were the
official world champions for the remainder of the sixties and celtic and man united won
consecutive european titles the following 2 seasons as well.
Bobby charlton, gordon banks and bobby moore were all seen as world class at that time and
similarly in georgie best british football had arguably the best in the world at
club level.
So england world champions in 66. Celtic european champions 67 and man utd in 68.
So for me thats british football reigning supreme.
The 1970 finals i thought we put in a good defence of the title as well tbh.
Ramsey and cloughies polish clown turned superman of a keeper kept us out of the 74 finals
and don revies team losing out only on goal difference to italy in 78.
They were the narrowest of margins. Similarly in 82 we were hampered by injuries to keegan,
who was the european footballer of the year at that time, and brooking. We were very close
to a semi final in that tournament, even so, if i remember correctly.
86 was the hand of god incident again in the QFs. Really unlucky and same again in
1990 when we reached the semis and went out on pens.
So not reigning supreme internationally after the 6os but most certainly we were always
seen as a threat unlike now.
British clubs won a host of european trophies all around the 70s and 80s as well.